From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758019AbbJ2Uw7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:52:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57641 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752569AbbJ2Uw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:52:56 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: Jens Axboe Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blktrace: re-write setting q->blk_trace References: <20151027030545.GH27292@linux-uzut.site> <20151027031452.GI27292@linux-uzut.site> <20151029191905.GA7947@linux-uzut.site> <56328152.9040001@kernel.dk> <56328634.7030702@kernel.dk> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:52:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <56328634.7030702@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:48:52 +0900") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe writes: > On 10/30/2015 05:46 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jens Axboe writes: >> >>> On 10/30/2015 04:19 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: >>>> >>>>> The patch itself looks ok, but it doesn't seem to apply to a recent >>>>> kernel tree. It appears as though it is white-space damaged. Would you >>>>> mind re-sending it? >>>> >>>> Hmm sorry about that. I thought I had based it against that day's >>>> tip/master. >>>> Anyway, here is v3 which is against tip/master as of >>>> 338e29ba93639138fafb9fb5ba946fd99a512aae. >>> >>> Thanks, this is definitely cleaner. Your patch is still pretty >>> mangled, though. I had to hand apply it. Please check the result: >> >> Heh, and here I just assumed the problem was on my end. >> >>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-4.4/core&id=cdea01b2bf98affb7e9c44530108a4a28535eee8 >> >> That looks fine, except you're missing the 'R' in Reviewed-by. > > e-viewed. Electronically viewed by jeff? Heh. Well, that's not wrong! ;-)